I honestly don't know how many times we have to go through this.  In the FE cosmology, the earth (system), "mundus", continues to be a sphere, as the firmament enclosing the earth is spherical, and that makes perfect sense that the sphere of the earth would be convulsed by whatever's happening, including messing with the regular motion of the stars.  So what effect on the "NASA ball" sphere (where we walk on a ball, vs. the entire world system being spherical) would cause the starts to lose their motion? ... oh, wait, something that messes with the movement of the firmament in which said stars actually reside.

You see words "globe, ball, sphere" and like Pavlov's dogs trained by NASA and the modern scientific establishment you immediately conclude "NASA ball".

Sorry Ladislauis, that argument doesn't work this time. Our Lady's prophesy was about the Earth's globe or sphere reads very specific to me. Our Lady was referring to the problems the EARTH would undergo, not the universe. The idea that Our Lady meant a flat Earth in a global universe will not convince anybody interested in this debate.
Perhaps someone can tell us the French word used by Our Lady and the seers for globe or sphere.

Our Lady said: 'The seasons will be altered, the EARTH will produce nothing but bad fruit, the stars will lose their regular motion, the moon will only reflect a faint reddish glow. Water and fire will give the EARTH's globe (or sphere), convulsions and terrible earthquakes which will swallow up mountains, cities, etc....'

I am a french speaker and the text is:

Les saisons seront changées, la terre ne produira que de mauvais fruits, les astres perdront leurs
mouvements réguliers, la lune ne reflétera qu’une faible lumière rougeâtre ; l’eau et le feu
donneront au globe de la terre des mouvements convulsifs et d’horribles tremblements de terre
qui feront engloutir des montagnes, des villes, etc…

In english I guess it would mean : Earth's globe. So your text is correct. 

The earth IS A GLOBE.  With flat land.

From the center of the flat earth model, how high is the atmosphere?

Sorry Ladislauis, that argument doesn't work this time. Our Lady's prophesy was about the Earth's globe or sphere reads very specific to me.

I think you truly have been retarded by your NASA worship.  Seriously?  Even in English we refer to the entire realm we live in as "earth", and not just the dry land that we stand on.  On top of that in the expression globe OF the eath, what does the possessive mean?  Does she say that the earth/land IS a globe?  No, but that it HAS a globe or that the globe belongs to the earth.  As typical with the NASA-ball types you just read into it what you want to see there.

So you're telling me that you can't refer to what Our Lord in this "Salvator Mundi" is holding as the "globe of the earth"?  that the globe surroundting the earth and attached to the earth and pertaining to the earth cannot be called the "globe OF the earth"?



On top of that, when dealing with cosmology, the "earth" is contrasted with the "heaven", as in the expression "heaven and earth", es cieux et la terre, where the contrast is between the heavens and the earth, as in the Creed where we believe that God created the heaven and the earth?  Is the "earth" here limited to just the dirt that we walk on or the earth meaning the system that includes everything that lives on it, i.e. as in the broader sense of God having created "the visible and the invisible"?

What’s the difference between “NASA’s globe” and Copernic’s astrology model?

On the Galileo question I suggest Hertz' article. She said that the condemnation of Galileo was signed by seven judges, but not by the pope, and therefore was not an ex-cathedra pronouncement. The same, coincidentally, can be said of the Fr. Feeney situation. 

So ... while I do believe that the pope wholeheartedly approved the condemnation of heliocentrism, you do point out the same contradiction that I have where I've asked those who claim that "Suprema Fake" was practically dogma to explain why they are not geocentrists, since the Holy Office declared that non-geocentrism is proximate to heresy (a higher note of condemnation than SH laid down), and I also asked them why (most of them) reject the Holy Office affirmation that explicit knowledge of the Holy Trinity and salvation are necessary by necessity of means for salvation (in asserting that infidels can be saved).  You get no answer, but we know that the answer is that they hold up as authoritative those things which they happen to agree with but are inconsistent in ignoring the rest.

On the Galileo question I suggest Hertz' article.  She said that the condemnation of Galileo was signed by seven judges, but not by the pope, and therefore was not an ex-cathedra pronouncement.  The same, coincidentally, can be said of the Fr. Feeney situation. 

Official texts on the subject can be found in several places.  In addition to this quote (below) there are several in the book "Burned Alive" by AA Martinez that show three popes were involved in condemnations against heliocentrism and the Pythagorean doctrine. 

According to The Earthmovers, both Pope Paul V in 1616 and Pope Urban VIII in 1633 condemned Heliocentrism and the Pythagorean doctrine of Galileo. With Urban VIII universally publicizing the verdict: On 2nd, July 1633, under orders of Pope Urban VIII, the condemnation of heliocentrism was made universally public, not just confined to Galileo alone as some apologists would argue later. Copies of the sentence and Galileo’s abjuration were sent to all vicar nuncios and inquisitors who in turn made them known to professors of philosophy and theology throughout the Catholic world. - Prologue, p. 9